DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments of Association of Arkansas Counties on Fws

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments of Association of Arkansas Counties on Fws COMMENTS OF ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS COUNTIES ON FWS PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEOSHO MUCKET AND RABBITSFOOT MUSSEL (50 C.F.R. Part 17) Published at: FWS-R4-ES-2012-0031 FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007 RIN 1018-AZ30 78 Fed. Reg. 52894 (August 27, 2013) Submitted on: October 28, 2013 To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Policy and Directives Management 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM Arlington, VA 22203 Via: http://www.regulations.gov Docket ID No. FWS-R4-ES-2013-0007 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE NEOSHO MUCKET AND RABBITSFOOT MUSSEL (50 C.F.R. Part 17) I. Executive Summary A. Introduction On October 16, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”) published a proposed rule1 listing the Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) and rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical) mussels (the “target species”) as endangered and threatened, respectively, and designating critical habitats for both under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended.2 On September 17, 2013, the Service published its final rule3 listing the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels as endangered and threatened, respectively, but did not make a final determination on designation of critical habitat units for the target species. On August 27, 2013, the Service published a notice4 that it was reopening the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat units for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels. The Service’s proposed rule specifically requested, inter alia, comments concerning relevant data regarding threats to the species and regulations that may be addressing those threats; reasons why the Service should or should not designate critical habitat; what areas should be included in the designation and why; what areas are essential for the conservation of the species and why; foreseeable economic impacts that may result from designating any area that may be included in the final designations; and whether the Service’s approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified to provide for greater public participation. Pursuant to the Service’s notices of the proposed rulemaking, the Association of Arkansas Counties and the undersigned 1 77 Fed. Reg. 63440. 2 15 U.S.C. § 1531 et seq. 3 78 Fed. Reg. 57076. 4 78 Fed. Reg. 52894. 1 Commenters provide the following information and comments concerning the proposed designation of critical habitats for the Neosho mucket and rabbitsfoot mussels in Arkansas. The following comments address a number of the topics on which the Service requested additional information or comments. The Service’s proposed rule will designate a total of 769.2 river miles in Arkansas as critical habitat for Neosho muckets and rabbitsfoot mussels. The proposed critical habitat designations will directly impact 31 Arkansas counties, and, if finalized as proposed, the targeted watershed will cover approximately 42% of the entire geographical area of Arkansas.5 The Association of Arkansas Counties proposes that the Service reduce the critical habit designations for the rabbitsfoot mussels as illustrated by the following map: 5 See Review of Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Rabbitsfoot Mussel and Neosho Mucket, GBMc & Associates (Oct. 17, 2013) (Appendix A hereto). 2 B. Commenters The undersigned Commenters are associations and individual organizations that represent a broad cross-section of Arkansas stakeholders whose real property and property rights will be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the target species. Many of the association members and individual organizations have an ownership interest in the riparian lands adjacent to the areas proposed for critical habitat designation. Still more of the associations’ members 3 and individual business organizations will be negatively impacted by the affect the critical habitat designations will have on the ability to obtain necessary State or federal permits or to conduct commercial, agricultural and recreational activities on private property. 1. Association of Arkansas Counties The Association of Arkansas Counties (“AAC”) is an association that represents Arkansas’ seventy-five counties and county and district officials. Designation of critical habitats for Neosho muckets and rabbitsfoot mussels will have a direct impact on Arkansas businesses and communities, which will, in turn, have an economic impact on employment, tax revenues, and overall quality of life throughout Arkansas. The AAC and its members have an interest in this rulemaking because the broad scope of the proposed critical habitat designation will result in costly and disruptive impacts that may or may not produce corresponding benefits, in part because so little is known about the specific habitat requirements for these species. 2. Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce/Associated Industries of Arkansas The Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc. are independent non-profit corporations operated by a single staff in Little Rock, Arkansas. Combined, the AR State Chamber/AIA represents over 1250 businesses, manufacturers, business associations, local chambers of commerce and economic development corporations in all 75 counties in Arkansas. The mission of the AR State Chamber/AIA is to continually enhance the economic climate in Arkansas. It is our strong belief that on overbroad designation of Critical Habitat for the rabbitsfoot mussel and Neosho mucket in Arkansas will have a significant negative impact on the overall economy of Arkansas. The direct economic impact on the economic operation of counties, cities, agricultural operations and many business and industrial operations is potentially very 4 costly. But the indirect economic impact of lost jobs, reduced or eliminated development and avoidance of necessary repairs and improvements greatly increases the negative impact on our state’s economy. Additional damage to our economy will then follow in the form of lost tax revenue, increased unemployment claims, damage from unrepaired roads and bridges, increases in transportation costs. As local tax revenues are reduced and public assistance programs increase, tax increases will eventually be triggered that will not only have a direct negative impact on the state’s economy but an even broader negative impact by reducing the state’s economic competitiveness. Consequently the membership of the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce and the Associated Industries of Arkansas, Inc. have a vested interested in the outcome this critical decision that will impact the economic vitality of Arkansas for many years to come. 3. Arkansas Environmental Federation Founded in 1967, the Arkansas Environmental Federation is non-profit association with more than 250 members, the vast majority of them businesses and industries that deal with environmental, safety, and health regulations on a day-to-day basis. The AEF focuses on development of practical, common-sense laws and regulations based on sound science; a teamwork approach to compliance; and waste minimization and pollution prevention. As such, AEF and its members have a strong interest in the proposed designation of critical habitat throughout the State. 4. Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts The Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts is a membership association, a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit), whose purpose and mission is to assist the 75 conservation districts of the state of Arkansas in their efforts to serve the soil and water conservation needs of the people of 5 Arkansas . The intent of the Arkansas Legislature when enacting the Conservation Districts Law in 1937, the first in the nation, was to “provide for the control and prevention of soil erosion, for the prevention of floodwater and sediment damages, and for furthering the conservation, development, and utilization of soil and water resources and the disposal of water, acquiring property or interests in land necessary to prevent and control sediment runoff, and . assist in the control of nonpoint source pollution, protect the tax base, protect public lands, and protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state.”6 Ark. Code Ann. 14-125-105. This legislation was put into place to address natural resources issues such as drought and flooding, and remains relevant today for landowners, farmers, producers and ranchers dealing with drought, declining groundwater, and sediment and nutrient concerns. Conservation Districts Law established procedures for the formation of seventy five conservation districts which have all the powers and duties set out the Conservation Districts Law7. Conservation districts are local governments at work and their specific responsibility is management of our soil and water resources. The idea behind their formation is to keep decision making on soil and water conservation matters at the local level. Each district is governed by a board of five directors who serve without pay. Two directors are appointed by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission and three are elected by resident landowners. 5. Arkansas Forestry Association The Arkansas Forestry Association (“AFA”) advocates for the sustainable use and sound stewardship of Arkansas’s forests and related resources to benefit members of the state’s forestry community and all Arkansans today and in the future. AFA strives to be the respected leader and credible information source for all issues related to forestry. AFA and its members
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission 6Rder No
    ARKANSAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION 6RDER NO. 1-58 IN THE MATTER OF THE POLLUTION OF THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES BY SALT WATER ~~D OTHER OIL FIELD WASTES. Filed in this office on the 20th day of February. 1964. ?CLLUI'IC1 CCNT?.C L CCl·&~ISSICN IN TEE MATT3R CF THZ 7-'GLLl.i'TICi'! ) ) r'F THS LCHER \Uf.CH !TA RIVE::'. .t;.ND ) ) No. 1-58 TP.I""'UTAP.I'ZS .. y SAL'T HAT3R Al'-"!D ) ) CTHZR CIL :r"IELD ~~!ASTE3 ) CRDSR. FEEREA3, pursuant to the provisions of Act 472 of the Acts of Ar!<ansas for 1949, the ~.rkansas ~vater :?ollution Control Commis- sion, hereinafter referred to as the "CommissionH, is authorized to adopt rules and regulations to prevent pollutL.:-::."1 .s.nd to ma!~e and alter reasonable o~ders requiring the discontinuance of discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes into any of the waters of the State; and ~~~RZA3, investigations conducted by the Commission have established that enormous quantities of salt water and other oil field wastes are being cischerged each dc:.y from oil and gas wells into the waters of the !~uachita P..iver (below 7~iver hile 312) and the tributaries thereof, including Lapile Cree~-{, Nill Creek and Smackover Creek, hereinafter collectively referred to as the •:tower Cuachita River Drainage ':asinn; and HF..S~EA3, oil and gas wells in the Lower Cuachita River Drainage :>.asin discharge more than 19,200,000 2;allons of salt water per day, equivalent to over 12,500,000 pounds of dry salt, the sub- stant:ial part of which flows into the Cuachita River; and \:? 1:::::'2t<>, the dischar~e of said salt water and other oil field wastes has produced excessive and abnormal salinity and ab- normally lm.v p~: value in t:he "Jat:s::s of the Lower ~uachita :S.iver Drainage ~asin, thereby substantially impairin3 the quality of said~ .
    [Show full text]
  • Two New Species of Freshwater Crayfish of the Genus Faxonius (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas and Missouri
    Zootaxa 4399 (4): 491–520 ISSN 1175-5326 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/zt/ Article ZOOTAXA Copyright © 2018 Magnolia Press ISSN 1175-5334 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4399.4.2 http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:CBED78E9-6E23-4669-94A4-8A33DB109AE6 Two new species of freshwater crayfish of the genus Faxonius (Decapoda: Cambaridae) from the Ozark Highlands of Arkansas and Missouri JAMES W. FETZNER JR.1,3 & CHRISTOPHER A. TAYLOR2 1Section of Invertebrate Zoology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 4400 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-4080 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 2Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820 USA. E-mail: [email protected] 3Corresponding Author Abstract Two new species of freshwater crayfish are described from the Ozarks Plateau of northern Arkansas and southern Mis- souri. Both species are restricted to the mainstem of rocky streams that are at least fourth-order or greater in size. Recent genetic and morphological investigations of the coldwater crayfish, Faxonius eupunctus Williams, 1952, indicated that it was actually composed of several undescribed species. Faxonius eupunctus is herein restricted to just the Eleven Point River system. Faxonius roberti, new species is found in the mainstem of the Spring and Strawberry river systems in north- ern Arkansas. It differs from F. eupunctus by lacking a male Form-I gonopod with a distal spatulate mesial process, and presence of two spines on the dorsal side of the merus, where F. eupunctus typically has 1 spine. Faxonius wagneri, new species is known from a 54 mile (86 km) stretch of the Eleven Point River mainstem, ranging from just southeast of Greer, Missouri to just north of Birdell, Arkansas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Clean Energy Economy for Arkansas
    NRDC Issue Paper November 2009 A Clean Energy Economy for Arkansas Analysis of the Rural Economic Development Potential of Renewable Resources Author Martin R. Cohen NRDC Project Contact Pierre Bull About NRDC The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.3 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world’s natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org. Acknowledgments To come. For questions and further information on this report, please contact Pierre Bull, NRDC at [email protected] or (212) 727-4606. NRDC Director of Communications: Phil Gutis NRDC Marketing and Operations Director: Alexandra Kennaugh NRDC Publications Director: Lisa Goffredi NRDC Publications Editor: Anthony Clark Production: Jon Prinsky Copyright 2009 by the Natural Resources Defense Council. For additional copies of this report, send $5.00 plus $3.95 shipping and handling to NRDC Reports Department, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011. California residents must add 7.5% sales tax. Please make checks payable to NRDC in U.S. dollars. This report is printed on paper that is 100 percent postconsumer recycled fiber, processed chlorine free. Natural Resources Defense Council I ii A Clean Energy Economy for Arkansas: Analysis of the Rural Economic Development Potential
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 IRP Filing 103112.Pdf
    Entergy Arkansas, Inc. APSC FILED Time: 10/31/2012 2:33:12 PM: Recvd 10/31/2012 2:30:51 PM: Docket 07-016-U-Doc. 24 425 West Capitol Avenue P. O. Box 551 Little Rock, AR 72203-0551 Tel 501 377 4457 Fax 501 377 4415 Steven K. Strickland Vice President Regulatory Affairs October 31, 2012 Ms. Kristi Rhude Arkansas Public Service Commission P. O. Box 400 1000 Center Street Little Rock, AR 72203 Re: APSC Docket No. 07-016-U Entergy Arkansas, Inc. 2012 Integrated Resource Plan Dear Ms. Rhude: Consistent with Section 6 of Attachment 1 to the Arkansas Public Service Commission (“Commission”) Order No. 6 – Docket No. 06-028-R Resource Planning Guidelines for Electric Utilities, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (“EAI”) submits the following: a) its 2012 Integrated Resource Plan (the “IRP”); b) the Stakeholder Report that was prepared in accordance with Section 4.8 of the Commission’s Resource Planning Guidelines; c) the presentations made by EAI in connection with its July 31, 2012 Stakeholder Meeting; and d) EAI’s responses to Stakeholder’s questions at the Stakeholder Meeting. Should you have any questions concerning this filing, please call me at (501) 377-4457 or Laura Landreaux at (501) 377-5876. Sincerely, /s/ Steven K. Strickland SS Attachments c: All Parties of Record APSC FILED Time: 10/31/2012 2:33:12 PM: Recvd 10/31/2012 2:30:51 PM: Docket 07-016-U-Doc. 24 Entergy Arkansas, Inc. 2012 Integrated Resource Plan October 31, 2012 APSC FILED Time: 10/31/2012 2:33:12 PM: Recvd 10/31/2012 2:30:51 PM: Docket 07-016-U-Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water Under Scarcity Conditions Tyler Robert Knapp University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water under Scarcity Conditions Tyler Robert Knapp University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Agricultural Economics Commons, Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Knapp, Tyler Robert, "Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water under Scarcity Conditions" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1809. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1809 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Willingness to Pay for Irrigation Water under Scarcity Conditions A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture Economics by Tyler R. Knapp University of Georgia Bachelor of Arts in Political Science, 2008 Oregon State University Bachelor of Science in Environmental Economics and Policy, 2014 December 2016 University of Arkansas This thesis is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. Dr. Qiuqiong Huang Dr. Kent Kovacs Thesis Director Co-director Dr. Stijn Speelman Dr. Jennie S. Popp Committee Member Committee Member Dr. Bruce L. Dixon Dr. Rodolfo N. Nayga, Jr. Committee Member Committee Member Abstract Reliance of Arkansas agricultural producers on groundwater for irrigation has led to depletion of the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer. Without intervention, consequences include insufficient groundwater to meet irrigation demand as well as drawdown of the deeper Sparta Aquifer, upon which communities in eastern Arkansas rely for non-agricultural use.
    [Show full text]
  • Value Added Economic Impact of Agriculture in Arkansas
    Value Added Economic Impact of Agriculture in Arkansas Inside Value Added ..................................... 3 Arkansas Counts on Agriculture .................................... 5 2 Home Grown & Home Cooking .................................. 6 Agriculture in the Knowledge-Based Economy ........... 9 Arkansas is Our Campus ................. 10 University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture ..................... 11 Produced by the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture 2404 N. University Ave. Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 www.uaex.edu/division.htm Value In / Value Out Value Added Agriculture accounts for nearly $1 out of every $5 of added value in the state’s economy. “Value Added” is the total contribution to the economy of employee, owner and property income, 3 plus indirect business taxes. Total Impact of Value added as a result of agricultural and forestry Arkansas Agriculture production and processing in Arkansas was $13.1 billion in 2001, the latest year for which relevant ■ Employment — 291,290 jobs statistics are available. That was 19.6 percent of the (1 out of 5 Arkansas jobs) total value added in the state’s economy. ■ Wages — $7.8 Billion The agriculture and forestry sector provided 291,290 (12.7 percent of Arkansas wages) jobs and $7.8 billion in labor income. ■ Value Added — $13.1 Billion ($1 of every $5 of added value in Arkansas) A detailed analysis is provided in “Impact of the Agricultural Sector on the Arkansas Economy in 2001,” by J. Popp, G. Vickery, H.L Goodwin, and W. Miller. Research Report 975. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville. 4 Arkansas Counts on Agriculture rkansas led the Southeast region in the percentage of the economy contributed by agriculture in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Railroad Development Lesson Plan
    Arkansas State Archives Arkansas Digital Archives Lesson plans Educators Railroad development lesson plan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/lesson-plans Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Railroad development lesson plan, Arkansas history lesson plans, Arkansas State Archives, Little Rock, Arkansas. Use and reproduction of images held by the Arkansas State Archives without prior written permission is prohibited. For information on reproducing images held by the Arkansas State Archives, please call 501-682-6900 or email at [email protected]. Arkansas railroad development lesson plan, Arkansas State Archives, Little Rock, Arkansas. ‘The Advance Guard of Civilization’ The Impact of Railroad Development on the History and Economy of Arkansas and the Nation Social Studies – 6 – 8 (U.S. History, Arkansas History, World History, Civics, etc.); English Language Arts; Geography This unit explores the development of railroads and their impact on the economic development of Arkansas through the use of primary and secondary sources. Students will read newspaper articles and pamphlet excerpts to understand how the railroads affected industry and settlement across the state. A list of various activities related to original primary and secondary resources allows teacher the flexibility to choose parts of this lesson plan to use and adapt to various types of students. Essential Question: How did the development of railroads in Arkansas
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Implementation Strategy Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis
    Recovery Implementation Strategy Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Courtesy of Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This Recovery Implementation Strategy describes the activities to implement the recovery actions identified in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (Service 2017). The strategy provides a narrative and the implementation schedule for the Neosho Mucket recovery activities. The implementation schedule estimates the cost for implementing recovery activities for removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (delisting). Additionally, the strategy document restates the criteria for determining when the Neosho Mucket should be considered for delisting. A Species Biological Report, which provides information on the species’ biology and status and a brief discussion of factors limiting its populations, is available at http://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Recovery Strategy The primary strategy for recovery of Neosho Mucket is to conserve the range of genetic and morphological diversity of the species across its historical range; fully quantify population demographics and status within each river; improve population size and viability within each river; reduce threats adversely affecting the species within each river (e.g., habitat degradation from sedimentation, chemical contaminants, channel destabilization, water diversion); emphasize voluntary soil and water stewardship practices by citizens living and working within each watershed; and potentially use captive propagation to prevent local extirpation where recruitment failure is occurring and for reintroduction within rivers historically occupied by Neosho Mucket.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Esources Arkansas
    United States l Department of Agriculture Forest esources Forest Service Southern Forest Arkansas Experiment Station New Orleans, Louisiana Roy C. Beltz, Daniel F. Bertelson, Joanne L. Faulkner, and Dennis M. May Resource Bulletin SO-169 February 1992 SUMMARY The 1988 Forest Survey of Arkansas revealed new trends in forest resources. After decades of decline, forest area increased 3 percent. Pine plantation acreage increased substantially while acreage in natural pine stands decreased. Softwood inventory was down 5 percent, with growth also declining. Loblolly pine volume exceeded that of shortleaf pine for the first time in Arkansas his- tory. The outlook for hardwood resources is positive. Inventory and growth have increased, and loss of bottomland hardwood acreage appeared to be at a standstill. Front cover: Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) image of Arkansas produced from data collected by the NOAA-11 satellite of the Nation- al Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on April 11, 1991. In general, forest land is dark red; nonforest land is light red or blue; water is dark blue. CONTENTS HIGHLIGHTS ........................................ INTRODUCTION ................................... ...2 HISTORY OF ARKANSAS FORESTS .................... .3 FOREST AREA ...................................... .5 SurveyRegions ...................................... The Delta Region .................................. .5 The Ouachita Region ............................... .7 The Ozark Region .................................. .7 The Southwest
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Hosts and Culture of Mussel Species of Special Concern: Annual Report for 1999
    Fish Hosts and Culture of Mussel Species of Special Concern: Annual Report for 1999 Date prepared: February 28, 2000 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Missouri Ecological Services Field Office 608 East Cherry Street Columbia, MO 65201 and Natural History Section Missouri Department of Conservation P.O. Box 180 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Submitted by: M. Christopher Barnhart and Michael S. Baird Department of Biology Southwest Missouri State University 901 S. National Springfield, Missouri 65804 Telephone: 417-836-5166 FAX: 417-836-6934 E-mail: [email protected] 2 SUMMARY This report describes results of the second year of a 3-year investigation of reproductive biology of freshwater mussels (unionoids). At least 21 North American unionoids are already extinct and 69 species are federally classified as endangered (Williams et al. 1993, Neves et al. 1997). The purpose of this project is to provide information that will facilitate conservation and management of these unique organisms. Parasitism of larval unionoids on fish is a central feature of their biology. Knowledge of the host fish and the requirements of the juvenile life stages are prerequisite for propagation and restoration of endangered species. Therefore, we are attempting to identify fish hosts and key reproductive behaviors and to investigate the biology of cultured juveniles. During the past year we investigated hosts of four mussel species. Laboratory host tests with spectaclecase (Cumberlandia monodonta) on 26 potential host species were all negative. Examination of natural infestations of glochidia on fish revealed a few Cumberlandia glochidia on bigeye chub (Notropis amblops) and a single glochidium on shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum).
    [Show full text]
  • Status Survey of the Western Fanshell and the Neosho Mucket in Oklahoma
    1990 c.3 OKLAHOMA <) PROJECT TITLE: STATUS SURVEY OF THE WESTERN FANSHELL AND THE NEOSHO MUCKET IN OKLAHOMA To determine the distribution and abundance of the freshwater mussels Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson in Oklahoma. A survey to determine the status of the freshwater mussels, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) and Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, in Oklahoma was completed during August and September, 1989. These species are also known by the common names of Western Fanshell and Neosho Mucket, respectively. The western fanshell is probably extinct in the state. It is known that the species formerly occurred in the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and as a result of this study, was determined that it had also existed in the Caney River. However, no evidence of living or fresh specimens was found in any river system in northeastern Oklahoma. The Neosho mucket has also disappeared from most of its former range within the state and presently only occurs in a segment of the Illinois River system extending from the Lake Frances dam near the Arkansas border to Lake Tenkiller. Protection for this species is recommended. This report describes efforts to determine the status of two species of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Oklahoma. Both species are generally considered to be rare and have rather limited geographical distributions. Both species may meet the criteria of endangered species and thus it was considered important to gain some information as to their current status. Both species have been recorded in Oklahoma but their current abundance and distribution in the state were unknown. The western fanshell, Cyprogenia aberti (Conrad) was described in 1850 from specimens collected on the rapids of the Verdigris River, Chambers' Ford, Oklahoma (Johnson, 1980).
    [Show full text]